Do you know any shops that have the facilities that allow you view the t&c prior to purchase?

Anyone who wants to get access to them will. If you can't find them online you can call the company and get them in an email, no doubt.

Not that this is even necessary. There's nothing forbidden in the terms that any reasonable person should think they are entitled to do, even if they want to. You shouldn't need a terms and conditions document to know that Blizzard can nuke your account at any time. It's just common consumer sense.

Do you know any shops that have the facilities that allow you view the t&c prior to purchase?

You could argue that most people have a phone that can go online to read it.
If not, then by buying the game you most likely have an internet connection, so you can read it before you open the box. You don't agree with the t&c/EULA? Go right ahead and get a refund from the store.
Already opened the box? Well, too bad. It did warn you about a t&c and so on on the back, which you can read just fine without ever opening it or breaching the seal.

Anyone who wants to get access to them will. If you can't find them online you can call the company and get them in an email, no doubt.

Not that this is even necessary. There's nothing forbidden in the terms that any reasonable person should think they are entitled to do, even if they want to. You shouldn't need a terms and conditions document to know that Blizzard can nuke your account at any time. It's just common consumer sense.

Originally Posted by zyx

You could argue that most people have a phone that can go online to read it.
If not, then by buying the game you most likely have an internet connection, so you can read it before you open the box. You don't agree with the t&c/EULA? Go right ahead and get a refund from the store.
Already opened the box? Well, too bad. It did warn you about a t&c and so on on the back, which you can read just fine without ever opening it or breaching the seal.

It is not the consumer's responsibility to go hunting around online for the t&c. EU law states that before entering into a contract the terms must be made available to the potential customer prior to entering into the contract. If a company wants a customer to agree to its terms then it must provide the customer with those terms in full before the contract can be accepted a small line of text on the back of a box does not absolve the company from this responsibility.

It is not the consumer's responsibility to go hunting around online for the t&c. EU law states that before entering into a contract the terms must be made available to the potential customer prior to entering into the contract. If a company wants a customer to agree to its terms then it must provide the customer with those terms in full before the contract can be accepted a small line of text on the back of a box does not absolve the company from this responsibility.

But there is no law stating that the EULA has to be made available at the site of, or time of, purchase. It just has to be available to the consumer in some way prior to the consumer making the purchase. An online posting of those terms and conditions, along with notification of where they can be found printed on the box, would be enough to satisfy that requirement.

As long as it is available without purchase in some fashion to the consumer, then then even under EU law it is still the consumer's responsibility to be knowledgeable about what they are agreeing to.

If what you are trying to claim was actually true, no company would sell software of any kind in the EU, as the consumer would be able to do whatever they wanted with it once purchased. Copyright and anti-piracy laws would be completely unenforceable. And since the EU has some of the most strict anti piracy and copyright laws on the planet, I very highly doubt your assumptions are correct.

Last edited by Gurbz; 2013-02-22 at 05:36 PM.

All this complaining is simply further proof that Blizzard could send each and every player a real-life wish-granting flying unicorn carrying a solid gold plate of chocolate chip cookies wrapped in hundred dollar bills, and someone would whine that Blizzard sucks for not letting them choose oatmeal raisin.

Originally Posted by DeadmanWalking

If your guild demands you slip into an elephants butt and force yourself out in a regurgation then you can't blame Blizzard for supplying the elephant.

It is not the consumer's responsibility to go hunting around online for the t&c. EU law states that before entering into a contract the terms must be made available to the potential customer prior to entering into the contract. If a company wants a customer to agree to its terms then it must provide the customer with those terms in full before the contract can be accepted a small line of text on the back of a box does not absolve the company from this responsibility.

I just don't see the logic here from a consumer's point of view. If you give a shit what the t&c says, why would you not make an effort to find it before purchasing the game? The fact that it's inconvenient because you have to look for it yourself, and you can't get a refund if you buy the software first, seems more like a matter of markets than a matter of law. How is simply not purchasing the software not a perfect solution to this problem?

But there is no law stating that the EULA has to be made available at the site of, or time of, purchase. It just has to be available to the consumer in some way prior to the consumer making the purchase.

As long as it is available without purchase in some fashion to the consumer, then then even under EU law it is still the consumer's responsibility to be knowledgeable about what they are agreeing to.

If what you are trying to claim was actually true, no company would sell software of any kind in the EU, as the consumer would be able to do whatever they wanted with it once purchased. Copyright and anti-piracy laws would be completely unenforceable. And since the EU has some of the most strict anti piracy and copyright laws on the planet, I very highly doubt your assumptions are correct.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, I have never claimed that the customer is not responsible for knowing what they are agreeing to. I am simply stating that a small bit of text on the back of the box, and looking at my copies of TBC and Wrath that text does not even tell me where I can view the TOU, is not enough.

Copyright has nothing to do with the terms of a contract as it is already covered by law and existing laws supersede anything written in a contract.

But there is no law stating that the EULA has to be made available at the site of, or time of, purchase. It just has to be available to the consumer in some way prior to the consumer making the purchase.

Check german law. 99% of all software EULAs are not legally binding here. Also, you do not actually buy "licenses" most of the time, you actually buy a copy of the software and may do whatever with it as long as you don't break any laws.

Originally Posted by Magpai

I just don't see the logic here from a consumer's point of view. If you give a shit what the t&c says, why would you not make an effort to find it before purchasing the game? The fact that it's inconvenient because you have to look for it yourself, and you can't get a refund if you buy the software first, seems more like a matter of markets than a matter of law. How is simply not purchasing the software not a perfect solution to this problem?

"No refund for opened boxes" is only applicable to faults you can find without opening the box or refunds because you don't want the product. ToS and EULAs are not considered part of this, so they have to refund you if you have a problem with those. The "no refund" signs in shops are just a waste of paper.

"No refund for opened boxes" is only applicable to faults you can find without opening the box or refunds because you don't want the product. ToS and EULAs are not considered part of this, so they have to refund you if you have a problem with those. The "no refund" signs in shops are just a waste of paper.

That's not really the point of what I was saying, but even if what you're saying is true, that's all the more reason to enforce these EULAs as written since the consumer has no risk involved in opting out of them if they can just get a refund for the physical software.

---------- Post added 2013-02-22 at 06:04 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Pann

Copyright has nothing to do with the terms of a contract as it is already covered by law and existing laws supersede anything written in a contract.

Copyright has everything to do with these. It's what allows the company to set the terms for use of their product.

"No refund for opened boxes" is only applicable to faults you can find without opening the box or refunds because you don't want the product. ToS and EULAs are not considered part of this, so they have to refund you if you have a problem with those. The "no refund" signs in shops are just a waste of paper.

But as soon as the box is opened, the shop will never take it back. You can already have used the printed cd-key on it or already installed/copied it to another medium.
And once again, we're back at the beginning: You are warned about a ToS and EULAs before opening the box, which you can read online.

This thread seems to be going around in circles over and over again. The bottom line to the question in the OP is:
Is the contract binding? Probably not in some countries.
Can you sell your account? Yes, in some countries it is well within your right to do so.
Can/Will Blizzard ban said account? Yes they will.
Can you sue them for it? Probably yes, if you got enough money and time to waste on it.

I don't think any court should be endorsing the idea that a consumer can deliberately choose to ignore terms presented to them and free themselves from being bound by them. No court should endorse that kind of stupidity at the expense of the party that did their part (the company). It shouldn't be any more complicated than "know what you're getting into, or do not participate".

My point was simply that general practice will be taken into account when a court decides.

A vanishingly small number of people read eulas. This means eula are defective, that is they don't achieve their intended purpose (which is to inform the person who clicks I accept and get them to agree to the terms.)

---------- Post added 2013-02-22 at 06:13 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Magpai

I just don't see the logic here from a consumer's point of view. If you give a shit what the t&c says, why would you not make an effort to find it before purchasing the game? The fact that it's inconvenient because you have to look for it yourself, and you can't get a refund if you buy the software first, seems more like a matter of markets than a matter of law. How is simply not purchasing the software not a perfect solution to this problem?

If you have, oh say 1 million people and all but 25 of them don't read the contract, the contract presentation is defective.

But as soon as the box is opened, the shop will never take it back. You can already have used the printed cd-key on it or already installed/copied it to another medium.
And once again, we're back at the beginning: You are warned about a ToS and EULAs before opening the box, which you can read online.

Yes they will. They have no choice in this matter. Also, "being available online" is considered insufficient by courts.

My point was simply that general practice will be taken into account when a court decides.

A vanishingly small number of people read eulas. This means eula are defective, that is they don't achieve their intended purpose (which is to inform the person who clicks I accept and get them to agree to the terms.)

---------- Post added 2013-02-22 at 06:13 PM ----------

If you have, oh say 1 million people and all but 25 of them don't read the contract, the contract presentation is defective.

I guess this is where our fundamental disagreement lies then, because if 1 million people have a EULA presented directly to their face and 999,975 people ignore it, then I think it's the 999,975 people who are defective. I'll admit I count myself among them, but then again you don't see my blaming the gaming companies for it either.

Still, you didn't answer my question. How is deciding not to buy the product not a perfect solution to avoiding getting screwed by unknown terms and conditions?

I guess this is where our fundamental disagreement lies then, because if 1 million people have a EULA presented directly to their face and 999,975 people ignore it, then I think it's the 999,975 people who are defective. I'll admit I count myself among them, but then again you don't see my blaming the gaming companies for it either.

It's obviously a silly position to take, when general practice is that overwhelming (which it is). if software companies know that people don't read the eual (which they must do) then what's happening is taking advantage of general practice and by extension the customer, surely?

Still, you didn't answer my question. How is deciding not to buy the product not a perfect solution to avoiding getting screwed by unknown terms and conditions?

It's obviously a silly position to take, when general practice is that overwhelming (which it is). if software companies know that people don't read the eual (which they must do) then what's happening is taking advantage of general practice and by extension the customer, surely?

No, the fact that the general practice of the consumer is to willfully be an ignoramus does not imply additional responsibility on the company's part. That's absurd. I suppose if the "general practice" was to ignore the price and pretend you didn't understand it, you'd expect the company to be compelled to refund everyone's subscription fees as well? A government should not cater to this kind of deliberate stupidity at the expense of the party that actually did their part in constructing an informed agreement.

it isn't. Knowing your own terms and condition is.

I asked HOW. "it isn't" is not an answer to that. Which of the consumer's problems are not solved by simply not purchasing the product?

No, the fact that the general practice of the consumer is to willfully be an ignoramus does not imply additional responsibility on the company's part. That's absurd.

Why would it be? If I know you are going to behave a certain way and then arrange matters so that I benefit at your expense........ why on earth would it be the person who is being suckereds responsibility to fix it? He isn't the one taking the mickey.

I suppose if the "general practice" was to ignore the price and pretend you didn't understand it, you'd expect the company to be compelled to refund everyone's subscription fees as well?

Obviously. If you've got 95%+ of people acting a certain way when they are given a certain set of circumstances, it's hard to call them at fault. The fault has to be on the other end. It's very similar to talking to you in ancient sanskrit, yes you can go off and learn it, but if I want you to understand me, the onus is on me to speak in a way you will unjderstand. Especially if I want your explicit agreement.

A government should not cater to this kind of deliberate stupidity at the expense of the party that actually did their part in constructing an informed agreement.

They haven't constructed an informed agreement because no one reads it.They might have intended to, but they demonstrably failed.

I asked HOW. "it isn't" is not an answer to that. Which of the consumer's problems are not solved by simply not purchasing the product?

The fact that they did purchase the product under terms and condition of their own cognition. Two parties in a contract, they both count.

Wrong. I'm not saying the EULA itself is invalid, but portions thereof. (Which raises another issue because most states will only nix out invalid portions of a contract and attempt to keep the parties intent constant. A minority of states, including my own, would deem the whole contract void. And a click-through agreement such as an EULA is deemed a contract.)

But specifically, I'm talking about the ability to transfer an account to a third party. It's a restraint on alienation of trade - in other words, the argument would say something like:

The issue I see is that you're profiting of the use of software at the expense of the person who wrote the software. At best this is a case of copyright laws that contradict contract laws and when that happens a judge would have the final say in which way it goes. It's arguable that you could make a convincing case but as far as I know there's little precident to help.

I'm really impressed. With about 5 million customers in europe and the americas I've never heard of a successful lawsuit against blizzard and their practices, the only one I know of is from SK, and it was about D3s refundability.

So where are all the complaints because of inhuman conditions while playing Blizzard games. They sure sound like some kind of slave driver!

Why would it be? If I know you are going to behave a certain way and then arrange matters so that I benefit at your expense........ why on earth would it be the person who is being suckereds responsibility to fix it? He isn't the one taking the mickey.

The person "being suckered" is only being suckered because of their own failure evaluate it properly. There is no deception at work here, only laziness on the part of the consumer.

Obviously. If you've got 95%+ of people acting a certain way when they are given a certain set of circumstances, it's hard to call them at fault. The fault has to be on the other end. It's very similar to talking to you in ancient sanskrit, yes you can go off and learn it, but if I want you to understand me, the onus is on me to speak in a way you will unjderstand. Especially if I want your explicit agreement.

This is a pitiful analogy. You don't have to spend years learning anything new to understand this contract. All you have to do is READ IT.

They haven't constructed an informed agreement because no one reads it.They might have intended to, but they demonstrably failed.

Why did the company fail? Why is the failure not on the part of the consumer who couldn't be assed to read the contract that they signified they had read, understood and agreed to?

The fact that they did purchase the product under terms and condition of their own cognition. Two parties in a contract, they both count.

If you CHOOSE NOT TO PURCHASE, this problem never occurs to begin with. Yes or no?

---------- Post added 2013-02-22 at 06:48 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Pann

The rights of the copyright holder are already extensively and clearly defined in law the terms of a contract cannot alter these rights.

The contract is an extension of their rights under copyright law, which includes the right to dictate under what prices and conditions their product will be used.

The person "being suckered" is only being suckered because of their own failure evaluate it properly. There is no deception at work here, only laziness on the part of the consumer.

Not so. If literally millions of people behave a certain way, that's the norm. Sorry that you don't like it.

This is a pitiful analogy. You don't have to spend years learning anything new to understand this contract. All you have to do is READ IT.

And people don't. Why are you so immune to evidence on this issue?

Why did the company fail? Why is the failure not on the part of the consumer who couldn't be assed to read the contract that they signified they had read, understood and agreed to?

If I invented a vaccine that failed to work on 95% of people I gave it to, whose fault would it be - mine or theirs?
Is there anywhere, other than in this rather odd argument you've got going on, where overwhelming failure to get people to do something is the fault of the people and not the person trying to get them to do that something?

If you CHOOSE NOT TO PURCHASE, this problem never occurs to begin with. Yes or no?

Because you still understand something of your own cogntion to refuse to buy, the problem remains at blizzards end.